iteratedextras

[iteratedextras]

I don't live in New York City, but this is what the Mayor's race looks like from outside:

From what I remember from Covid, Cuomo sent Covid patients to nursing homes. Based on that, he sounds like a psychopath.

Mamdani apparently defended "globalize the intifada," wants to end educational tracking, and wants to upzone wealthy areas specifically. Sounds like a ball of resentment with a big smile.

Meanwhile, Eric Adams is bragging about using trash cans to overcome New York City's rat problem. There was something about teaching kids to swim. Apparently he allowed an embassy or something to get built without a full permit review, and got payoffs for... something?

Anyhow, between the three of them, Adams sounds the most normal. Cuomo vs Mamdani seems to be partly one of those "I'm voting Cuomo to stop Mamdani" vs "I'm voting for Mamdani to stop Cuomo" things.

That's how it looks from the outside based on what's filtering into my Twitter feed.

(With regard to swimming, looks like the pitch is "Oh, look at these poor children who drowned; if only they had known how to swim! We will have the city fund swimming lessons." Which, okay, as far as government programs go this is S.M.A.R.T. and there's basically no way for this to explode and cause problems.)

[iteratedextras]

[iteratedextras]

Shifting this to the sideblog because I've posted too much of this content in a row lately.

Couple of things.

First, I don't follow you.

Second, the New York Times is not "a few college busybodies." I understand that you probably want to forget that The 1619 Project happened - the NYT itself seems to, to a degree, having ditched the most inflammatory claims. That's not the literal language they used, but the intent seems quite similar.

More bluntly, progressives attempted explicitly racial healthcare rationing [The Atlantic] (institutionalized racism), and the Biden administration attempted explicitly racial farm aid [Reuters] (so, supported by the official Democratic party and the government).

These efforts were defeated, but it isn't because Democrats weren't trying to be racist, or because it was "just a few college busybodies."

Normal Americans aren't that racist. It's reasonably plausible that the median Democratic voter isn't that racist, due to frequent sanewashing of Democratic behavior (e.g. substituting the definition of "equality" for "equity," when the point of the language update is that "equity" is not "equality").

The Democratic party is that racist. I want to see some evidence of powerful elected Democrats punching left on this issue.

Otherwise, silence just comes off as a temporary tactical retreat. Limiting the actions of Republican Presidents requires cooperation from Republicans, so there has to be something to convince them that they don't need to impose strategic losses, if norms are going to re-emerge.

So many times I think "Man, this Trump guy sucks at being a fascist dictator!"

I don't think I'd want him to be a better fascist dictator, but I think I could do a much better job. So many people could do a better job!

[iteratedextras]

'can you pet the dog' turning into a meme trend sucked all the joy and life out of it forever because now whenever a video game lets me pet a dog it has this layer of cynicism to this, like you can't be confident that it's something made out of love for dogs or to put something gentle and nice into the world of the game, you have to have that knowledge in the back of your mind that it could just have been added for viral twitter marketing and that poisons the whole thing. never let me pet a dog in a game again

[iteratedextras]

Let me get on the record that bombing Iran is fucking stupid and I hate every part of it, and the only mitigating factor is that it seems very unlikely to ever proceed past air strikes.

I hate the fact that one constant of US politics is that every few years, regardless of which party is in power and what the campaign promises were, we're going to bomb some pointless country for some stupid reason. Hate everything about it.

[iteratedextras]

[ philippesaner ]

Anyway, if you think that traditional bigotry is no longer a meaningful force, you simply aren't looking at the world.

[ brazenautomaton ]

I didn't say traditional bigotry was no longer a meaningful force.

You don't really seem to understand the kind of people you are talking to, or what they are saying, or why.

[ philippesaner ]

If you think that someone decides what's negotiable based on what the party has committed to, you think they're a loyalist. Obviously.

You are trying to jam the conversation into a narrow rubric to force an artificial "win."

The bottom-line is this: Democrats should compromise with the electorate by not being racist against the majority of America.

It's totally normal for people to not want to be denied healthcare explicitly on the basis of their race. It's not an "evil Fox News position."

[ @argumate ]

I just don't think that's a good description of reality? like if "Democrats" were more empathic they would do this and that to win; Trump is one of the least empathic people alive and he won, he's constantly failing to understand the most basic things and being surprised by it and still winning, a severe lack of cognitive empathy or cognitive ability in general doesn't mean you can't win, he's the perfect example of that!

...what.

a better question might be how the entire Republican party could be hijacked by Trump, a washed up property investor / cable TV personality with no background in politics or particular knowledge or interest in the subject, why were they so incapable of recognising what the median voter wanted and giving it to them? billionaires richer than Trump, sons of ex-presidents, party operatives, each of them got completely blindsided by this incompetent!

Argumate, have you read the Dao Dejing?

[iteratedextras]

some of you people are insane

[iteratedextras]

Okay, facts are facts.

Fact 1:

I didn't say that Argumate was a "Democratic party loyalist," implying that he would always choose the side of Democrats in every dispute. That was your label. I said:

Yet Argumate believes that, because Democrats have adopted these positions, they are not negotiable.

Fact 2:

This was stated regarding the following three positions.

"Democrats could just not try to racially discriminate against the majority when that doesn't solve racial outcome gaps."

"Democrats could just not flood the country with foreigners when that doesn't solve global poverty."

"Democrats could just not try to censor anything when that censorship is not going to be effective anyway."

That post was not intended to be a highly literal, precisely-worded legal document.

Despite that, Argumate has been offered multiple opportunities to agree that attempts at institutionalized racial discrimination against white Americans, without evidence that they will close long-term racial outcome gaps, are immoral and bad politics.

He could even have used a fork, arguing that yes, anti-white American racial discrimination is morally wrong, but it was necessary in order to mobilize black voters, or something.

Instead, he blew it off like it was absurd to think that it happened, even though, according to mainstream sources, the attempts did happen, not only with vaccines, but also with other medical care (specifically anti white American), and with farm aid (balance of revenues through non-access to program).

There is an obvious logic that if America did not have ethnic minorities - say, if the country were to be partitioned on an ethnic basis - then the ethnic majority would not be discriminated against on behalf of ethnic minorities. Alternatively, if there were fewer members of minorities, then these minorities would have less political power, and thus be less able to push for ethnic or racial discrimination against the majority.

If voters are subjected to attempts at anti-majority racial discrimination, it is in their rational self-interest to oppose immigration so as not to be racially discriminated against.

You can argue that it's immoral for them to do so, but it's hardly illogical for them to do so.

The logic flows just fine.

Your position is that Argumate is acting principled by supporting open borders.

Okay, how does promoting ethnic conflict logic by discriminating against the majority help open borders?

If Argumate is choosing to prioritize open borders as his principle, then, logically speaking, he should be willing to sacrifice left-wing racism for the benefit of open borders.

So, either...

1 - Argumate is not a left-wing racist himself, and is supporting left-wing racism because it is the position of the U.S. Democratic Party and its associated constellation of aligned organizations and individuals.

That is, he would not have settled on the position himself, but is treating it as not negotiable because Democrats support it, as I said...

2 - Argumate is a left-wing racist, and is balancing his support for left-wing racism against his support for open borders. This seems unlikely, but it's not impossible.

For example, he may have demographic anxiety about European-majority countries due to the history of colonialism - though if that's the case, then he needs to learn to get over it.

3 - Argumate is prioritizing open borders over American race relations (this one is hypothetical), and is being an edgy bullet-biting utilitarian...

...of the most obnoxious kind: a short-termist inconsequentialist version who is willing to bite bullets about hurting the outgroup, but not willing to bite bullets about ingroup taboos.

4 - Argumate has trapped himself in a figurative box in which he is unable to acknowledge that the attempts at left-wing racial discrimination, or ideological support for left-wing racial discrimination, happened, or that they matter, and nothing will get through to him no matter how mainstream the source - so he's acting like an ideological idiot.

There are technically other options, but I can't think of one that's flattering to him.

So, which is it?

Personally, I think my suggestion that he's acting like a shill is the most kind (#1), followed by the theory that he's acting like a moron (#4).

Even taking open borders as an axiom - why would this prohibit taking the long way around of creating world peace and world prosperity, such that all the borders open naturally on their own?

[ @argumate ]

I just don't think that's a good description of reality? like if "Democrats" were more empathic they would do this and that to win; Trump is one of the least empathic people alive and he won, he's constantly failing to understand the most basic things and being surprised by it and still winning, a severe lack of cognitive empathy or cognitive ability in general doesn't mean you can't win, he's the perfect example of that!

...what.

a better question might be how the entire Republican party could be hijacked by Trump, a washed up property investor / cable TV personality with no background in politics or particular knowledge or interest in the subject, why were they so incapable of recognising what the median voter wanted and giving it to them? billionaires richer than Trump, sons of ex-presidents, party operatives, each of them got completely blindsided by this incompetent!

Argumate, have you read the Dao Dejing?

[iteratedextras]

their feeble attempts to criticize without deep study of the subject matter vs our trenchant insights from someone not fossilized by the establishment

[iteratedextras]

Ah, I think I may see the problem, now.

Telling black Americans that the only reason they are suffering is because white Americans are engaged in racial hoarding is lying to them about how the world works under modern industrial capitalism, and is also lying to them about what white Americans are actually doing.

Exploiting their fears and insecurities through demonizing white Americans can stir up very strong emotions, but then using that to create political power to do things like hiring people as air traffic controllers who haven't passed the same test as everyone else is corrosive - if anyone ever finds out, the reputation of the group will be damaged, while others will be left to rationalize to themselves why this was the correct move in order to protect their sense of self-worth.

So if you're an American civic nationalist who thinks we should put Americans first, then this is a problem. You should prefer policy that helps black Americans become strong and virtuous, which draws out their potential, and reduces their level of conflict with white Americans.

However, if we treat open borders as a moral axiom outweighing other considerations, as you have done before...

Then enraging them, playing up all of their worst fears, driving them to tears, in order to drive tremendous amounts of political investment, and delegitimize America as a polity...

Using them as a disposable battering ram to force open the border...

I mean, from that perspective, they're not special, right?

The goal is to kill the world system of national states. No special relations. No particularism.

You can find people of African descent anywhere. The ones in America? They are first world labor aristocracy. They have it better than many of their cousins in Africa. Why should they get priority, right?

But this stance erodes strength and virtue, which are essential for peace and prosperity, and is inconsequentialist.

If this position is the reason that you're so strangely opposed to Democrats compromising on anything, Argumate, and of course this is just a hypothetical, then you need to go back to the drawing board, because open borders as a moral axiom with top priority has lead you morally astray.

I recommend adopting more principles and holding them in tension in order to increase the dimensionality of your moral theory, and thereby reduce the amount of conflict with others, and increase your flexibility.

brazenautomaton said: [...chopped for brevity...] was the entire post and all of its conclusions supposed to be a mocking joke? because you still concluded that the left was no worse at cognitive empathy than the right, that it wasn’t important to understand your opponents, and that you can “do a good job explaining your ideas” without knowing what their opponents think.

we've all been around this merry go round a thousand times over and I think we know how it goes at this point.

firstly it's always a bit of a waste of time to talk about "the left" and "the right" when it's hard enough to get consistent answers out of one person let alone a completely undefined random subset of historically contingent internet commenters, we know that.

secondly one "side" being better or worse at cognitive empathy makes little difference in practice to issues where interests are opposed: understanding where someone is coming from does not unlock a magic sequence of words that changes their mind (if anything it might reveal how difficult it is to shift their opinion).

it is obviously tempting to paint our favoured faction as being the ones who are sensitive and understanding while their opponents are blockheaded fools who just can't listen because if they just had some empathy they would immediately realise the rightness of our position just as we can so clearly see the wrongness of theirs but we can forgo that exercise I think.

framing the appeal to empathy in terms like "Trump would not have been elected if his opponents just understood what the people wanted" is facile because if you oppose Trump's policies then enacting those same policies to prevent his election would achieve nothing, in fact it would normalise the very ideas you don't want to spread, and even if you did attempt to out-Trump Trump he might still win on charisma anyway.

now you could say that people were upset about prices going up and that contributed to Trump's victory and so more decisive action on controlling inflation could have helped, but that is less about ideological empathy and more about basic polling and economic observation, I think.

ultimately this discussion would be a lot more interesting if someone, anyone, had an example of an ideological principle that people fail to understand, and that failure of understanding is an actual mistake that leads to genuine negative consequences that could have been corrected by improved cognitive empathy, because a lot of the time it reads like the standard evangelical approach where it's assumed that if someone just explains Jesus one more time they'll GET IT.

[iteratedextras]

Progressives did the rationing, not just of vaccines, and Biden was their party's candidate and did not restrain them. There were many reasons people voted for Trump, and that was one of them.

And Trump being on a rampage depends on Republicans not restraining him.

Why are Republicans not restraining him? Because of toxic behavior like that. Every time some Democrat bitches and moans about something Trump is doing, he gets Democratic misbehavior thrown right back in his face.

Why is it so important to you that Democrats should not change?

Why are you so fucking opposed to necessary reform? You don't even live in America.

The vast racial conspiracy (either conscious or subconscious) that that part of the Democratic party imagines does not exist, so interventions based on their theories won't boost production and won't mend race relations. Why indulge them?

brazenautomaton said: [...chopped for brevity...] was the entire post and all of its conclusions supposed to be a mocking joke? because you still concluded that the left was no worse at cognitive empathy than the right, that it wasn’t important to understand your opponents, and that you can “do a good job explaining your ideas” without knowing what their opponents think.

we've all been around this merry go round a thousand times over and I think we know how it goes at this point.

firstly it's always a bit of a waste of time to talk about "the left" and "the right" when it's hard enough to get consistent answers out of one person let alone a completely undefined random subset of historically contingent internet commenters, we know that.

secondly one "side" being better or worse at cognitive empathy makes little difference in practice to issues where interests are opposed: understanding where someone is coming from does not unlock a magic sequence of words that changes their mind (if anything it might reveal how difficult it is to shift their opinion).

it is obviously tempting to paint our favoured faction as being the ones who are sensitive and understanding while their opponents are blockheaded fools who just can't listen because if they just had some empathy they would immediately realise the rightness of our position just as we can so clearly see the wrongness of theirs but we can forgo that exercise I think.

framing the appeal to empathy in terms like "Trump would not have been elected if his opponents just understood what the people wanted" is facile because if you oppose Trump's policies then enacting those same policies to prevent his election would achieve nothing, in fact it would normalise the very ideas you don't want to spread, and even if you did attempt to out-Trump Trump he might still win on charisma anyway.

now you could say that people were upset about prices going up and that contributed to Trump's victory and so more decisive action on controlling inflation could have helped, but that is less about ideological empathy and more about basic polling and economic observation, I think.

ultimately this discussion would be a lot more interesting if someone, anyone, had an example of an ideological principle that people fail to understand, and that failure of understanding is an actual mistake that leads to genuine negative consequences that could have been corrected by improved cognitive empathy, because a lot of the time it reads like the standard evangelical approach where it's assumed that if someone just explains Jesus one more time they'll GET IT.

[iteratedextras]

[iteratedextras]

It would be trivial for you to say this.

Beyond that, obviously this kind of racial discrimination will turn the majority against immigration, as a means to protect themselves from left-wing racial discrimination.

As the "open borders is a moral axiom" guy, it seems extremely dumb for you to prioritize the interests of a small portion of the Democrats who want to do crank racial discrimination that will antagonize the majority without actually solving anything.

I can think of some reasons that you might do that, but none of them are flattering.

brazenautomaton said: [...chopped for brevity...] was the entire post and all of its conclusions supposed to be a mocking joke? because you still concluded that the left was no worse at cognitive empathy than the right, that it wasn’t important to understand your opponents, and that you can “do a good job explaining your ideas” without knowing what their opponents think.

we've all been around this merry go round a thousand times over and I think we know how it goes at this point.

firstly it's always a bit of a waste of time to talk about "the left" and "the right" when it's hard enough to get consistent answers out of one person let alone a completely undefined random subset of historically contingent internet commenters, we know that.

secondly one "side" being better or worse at cognitive empathy makes little difference in practice to issues where interests are opposed: understanding where someone is coming from does not unlock a magic sequence of words that changes their mind (if anything it might reveal how difficult it is to shift their opinion).

it is obviously tempting to paint our favoured faction as being the ones who are sensitive and understanding while their opponents are blockheaded fools who just can't listen because if they just had some empathy they would immediately realise the rightness of our position just as we can so clearly see the wrongness of theirs but we can forgo that exercise I think.

framing the appeal to empathy in terms like "Trump would not have been elected if his opponents just understood what the people wanted" is facile because if you oppose Trump's policies then enacting those same policies to prevent his election would achieve nothing, in fact it would normalise the very ideas you don't want to spread, and even if you did attempt to out-Trump Trump he might still win on charisma anyway.

now you could say that people were upset about prices going up and that contributed to Trump's victory and so more decisive action on controlling inflation could have helped, but that is less about ideological empathy and more about basic polling and economic observation, I think.

ultimately this discussion would be a lot more interesting if someone, anyone, had an example of an ideological principle that people fail to understand, and that failure of understanding is an actual mistake that leads to genuine negative consequences that could have been corrected by improved cognitive empathy, because a lot of the time it reads like the standard evangelical approach where it's assumed that if someone just explains Jesus one more time they'll GET IT.

[iteratedextras]

Argumate can you just fucking admit that the Democrats should stop being so fucking racist.

They are not a fucking slab of granite that is completely impossible to change.

Just fucking admit that "we need to do 'corrective' racial healthcare rationing, no I won't check if it even works first" is unhinged, that it is normal for people to vote against it, that it's dragging down Democrats electorally and is not ~the civil rights struggle of our time~.

brazenautomaton said: [...chopped for brevity...] was the entire post and all of its conclusions supposed to be a mocking joke? because you still concluded that the left was no worse at cognitive empathy than the right, that it wasn’t important to understand your opponents, and that you can “do a good job explaining your ideas” without knowing what their opponents think.

we've all been around this merry go round a thousand times over and I think we know how it goes at this point.

firstly it's always a bit of a waste of time to talk about "the left" and "the right" when it's hard enough to get consistent answers out of one person let alone a completely undefined random subset of historically contingent internet commenters, we know that.

secondly one "side" being better or worse at cognitive empathy makes little difference in practice to issues where interests are opposed: understanding where someone is coming from does not unlock a magic sequence of words that changes their mind (if anything it might reveal how difficult it is to shift their opinion).

it is obviously tempting to paint our favoured faction as being the ones who are sensitive and understanding while their opponents are blockheaded fools who just can't listen because if they just had some empathy they would immediately realise the rightness of our position just as we can so clearly see the wrongness of theirs but we can forgo that exercise I think.

framing the appeal to empathy in terms like "Trump would not have been elected if his opponents just understood what the people wanted" is facile because if you oppose Trump's policies then enacting those same policies to prevent his election would achieve nothing, in fact it would normalise the very ideas you don't want to spread, and even if you did attempt to out-Trump Trump he might still win on charisma anyway.

now you could say that people were upset about prices going up and that contributed to Trump's victory and so more decisive action on controlling inflation could have helped, but that is less about ideological empathy and more about basic polling and economic observation, I think.

ultimately this discussion would be a lot more interesting if someone, anyone, had an example of an ideological principle that people fail to understand, and that failure of understanding is an actual mistake that leads to genuine negative consequences that could have been corrected by improved cognitive empathy, because a lot of the time it reads like the standard evangelical approach where it's assumed that if someone just explains Jesus one more time they'll GET IT.

[iteratedextras]

Is this actually a community wide or systemic problem or did you just meet one annoying guy

[iteratedextras]

Why does that matter?

He wants Democrats to keep being immoral and stupid, even when his own previous belief system suggests that they should compromise.

Why does whether or not he is "officially" a "Democratic party loyalist" matter?

[ @argumate ]

I just don't think that's a good description of reality? like if "Democrats" were more empathic they would do this and that to win; Trump is one of the least empathic people alive and he won, he's constantly failing to understand the most basic things and being surprised by it and still winning, a severe lack of cognitive empathy or cognitive ability in general doesn't mean you can't win, he's the perfect example of that!

...what.

a better question might be how the entire Republican party could be hijacked by Trump, a washed up property investor / cable TV personality with no background in politics or particular knowledge or interest in the subject, why were they so incapable of recognising what the median voter wanted and giving it to them? billionaires richer than Trump, sons of ex-presidents, party operatives, each of them got completely blindsided by this incompetent!

Argumate, have you read the Dao Dejing?

[iteratedextras]

Well...

If you genuinely think that it would have been impossible for the Democrats to in in 2024 without appealing to the Tariffs on Canada lobby and the El Salvadorean Prison lobby, then I think it's time to admit that you really don't have any idea what the average American cares about.

To be fair, Argumate is Australian.

Anyhow, to the people who have been reading the back-and-forth with philippesaner - I'm not the only one that noticed that Argumate compressed the range of possible policy choices in such a way as to remove the middle.

That's a normal observation.

It's also weird that Argumate insists on this even though he isn't even American, as far as I'm aware.

He's not an American. Therefore, he can't be a registered Democrat. He can't even vote in American elections. Defending Democrats making such a bad strategic choice and arguing that they mustn't compromise is weird for someone overseas.

Even if we account for American influence abroad, it's still weird.

brazenautomaton said: [...chopped for brevity...] was the entire post and all of its conclusions supposed to be a mocking joke? because you still concluded that the left was no worse at cognitive empathy than the right, that it wasn’t important to understand your opponents, and that you can “do a good job explaining your ideas” without knowing what their opponents think.

we've all been around this merry go round a thousand times over and I think we know how it goes at this point.

firstly it's always a bit of a waste of time to talk about "the left" and "the right" when it's hard enough to get consistent answers out of one person let alone a completely undefined random subset of historically contingent internet commenters, we know that.

secondly one "side" being better or worse at cognitive empathy makes little difference in practice to issues where interests are opposed: understanding where someone is coming from does not unlock a magic sequence of words that changes their mind (if anything it might reveal how difficult it is to shift their opinion).

it is obviously tempting to paint our favoured faction as being the ones who are sensitive and understanding while their opponents are blockheaded fools who just can't listen because if they just had some empathy they would immediately realise the rightness of our position just as we can so clearly see the wrongness of theirs but we can forgo that exercise I think.

framing the appeal to empathy in terms like "Trump would not have been elected if his opponents just understood what the people wanted" is facile because if you oppose Trump's policies then enacting those same policies to prevent his election would achieve nothing, in fact it would normalise the very ideas you don't want to spread, and even if you did attempt to out-Trump Trump he might still win on charisma anyway.

now you could say that people were upset about prices going up and that contributed to Trump's victory and so more decisive action on controlling inflation could have helped, but that is less about ideological empathy and more about basic polling and economic observation, I think.

ultimately this discussion would be a lot more interesting if someone, anyone, had an example of an ideological principle that people fail to understand, and that failure of understanding is an actual mistake that leads to genuine negative consequences that could have been corrected by improved cognitive empathy, because a lot of the time it reads like the standard evangelical approach where it's assumed that if someone just explains Jesus one more time they'll GET IT.